2002 PLP 1388 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1388 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1388 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1388 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1388 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioners
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code ‑(XLV of 1860), Ss. 420/468/471‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused were behind bar for last five months‑‑Challan had already been submitted in Court and accused were no more required by police‑‑‑Offence against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.4970), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑O. for the State Muhammad Younus Rana for the Complainant
Judgment & Decree
Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioners Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑O. for the State Muhammad Younus Rana for the Complainant The allegation against Muhammad Akhtar is that he was Patwari and he tampered with the Revenue Record in connivance with Muhammad Nawaz who is also petitioner in this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners were arrested on 24‑6‑2000. Five months have been passed and nothing incriminating has been recovered from them. He submits that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of, section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate‑General Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that though, offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P. C. but they are named in the F.I. R. and they both have caused monetary damages to one Muhammad Amir vendee in this case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case petitioners were arrested on 24‑6‑2000 and since then they are behind the bar. Challan has already been submitted in the Court and the petitioners are no more required by the police. Offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and allow bail to the petitioner in the I sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. H. B. T./M‑1136/L